Open Letter to Gordon Henderson MP
I wish to make the strongest of complaints about a recent episode of BBC File on Four; I have included the preamble from the Radio 4 web site. This was a typical one-side item from the BBC what could have been an interesting and informative debate on the subject, turned out to be a propaganda programme for the interviewers political view. When approaching subject like the one below it is the BBC job to remain totally neutral considering the taxpayer pays them for. Let me give an example a Solicitor for a Moslem who is Guantanamo Bay Prison who claims he is innocent stated in a lengthy interview that US Troops tortured her client in a horrific manner and British Government agents witnessed this. The Interviewer at no time did she question the accuracy of this account. I for one would have the question did anyone witness this? Were there any photographs? Were there any video recordings? The simple fact is that this man and his solicitor are making the accusation; it is in their interest to make accusations like this. Now I do not whether it is true or not but the point is this Solicitor has gained a lot of free publicity, knowing full well the government agency can not come forward to answer these spurious remarks. Another incident was a man said that his telephone had been bugged and British Intelligence was using his information. He complained to the IPS and was asked what proof he had of this, his answer was NONE, so how can he complain just because he imagined somebody was listening to him. He should have gone a Physiatrist rather then the IPS but why did the BBC allow him to make such accusation?
I had hoped to listen to an interesting debate all I heard once again the BBC supporting the breakdown of our intelligence service
I have forwarded this a complaint to the BBC but doubt if I will get any response
FILE ON FOUR
Secrecy and Surveillance
7 DAYS LEFT TO LISTEN
Duration: 38 minutes
First broadcast: Tuesday 24 September 2013
Recent revelations about secret mass surveillance programmes have raised fears about potential abuses of individual privacy in favour of national security. With requests to intercept personal communications data on the rise, just who is collecting the information and for what purpose? Even local authorities can now use surveillance powers to track employees and monitor the activities of residents. So what rights do people have when they feel they have been unfairly targeted? Jenny Chryss examines the role of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal - the little known body that considers complaints from those who've been under surveillance by the state. Critics talk of an "Orwellian system" in which cases are shrouded in too much secrecy. The Tribunal usually sits in private, with claimants barred from hearing evidence and with little detailed explanation of its decisions. So where should the balance lie between openness and effective oversight?